Cansat 2008: Tuskegee University Final Presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Cansat 2008: Tuskegee University Final Presentation

on

  • 2,551 views

Final presentation by Tuskegee University at CanSat 2008

Final presentation by Tuskegee University at CanSat 2008

http://www.astronautical.org/2008/06/15/cansat-2008-tuskegee-university/

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,551
Views on SlideShare
2,512
Embed Views
39

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
28
Comments
0

3 Embeds 39

http://www.astronautical.org 34
http://astronautical.org 4
http://209.85.171.104 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Cansat 2008: Tuskegee University Final Presentation Cansat 2008: Tuskegee University Final Presentation Presentation Transcript

  • Tuskegee University
    • Cansat 2008
    • After – Action Report and Analysis
  • Overview of After-Action Report
    • Attending Members
    • Design Overview
    • Data as recorded by ground station
    • Results of flight (success, failure, and omissions)
    • Failure mode analysis
    • Lessons learned
    • Preparations for next competition
  • Attending Members
    • Software Lead: Christopher Coleman
    • Hardware Lead: Brandon Williams
    • Advisor: Eldon Triggs
  • Design Overview
    • 2.8 inch diameter by 11 inch length planetary exploration payload
    • Parachute to surface and record altitude during entire flight
    • Transmit data to ground station during flight
    • Land upright and detach parachute prior to landing
  • Design Overview
    • Use of COTS hardware to collect data and transmit to ground station (ARTS2 altimeter and TX-900G transmitter/GPS)
    • Use hotwire connected to pyros to cut parachute loose
    • Use LDM (Lawn Dart Method) to land upright
    • Use 9.6V battery to power all functions
  • Ground station data collection
    • Heavy emphasis on collection of altitude data
      • Average descent rate was 14.1 feet/sec or 4.3 meters/sec
      • Max barometric altitude was 4852 feet / 1330 ft AGL
      • Max acceleration was 43.37 meters/sec^2
  •  
  •  
  • Results of Flight
    • Tuskegee University’s Cansat successfully flew on June 14 th , 2008
    • First Cansat competition for Tuskegee
    • Some objectives/requirements met, some were not
  • Objectives achieved
    • Measurement of altitude and transmit to ground station.
      • Good link with ARTS2 altimeter and TX-900G transmitter throughout duration of flight (maximum signal strength)
      • Storage of data on ground station and flight computer successful
  • Objectives achieved
    • Proper parachute deployment
      • Parachute packing was correct and allowed proper deployment
      • Parachute deployed and slowed the Cansat to 4.3 m/s average
  • Objectives Missed
    • Landing upright
      • Due to weight restrictions, landing legs were not installed.
      • Cansat impacted hard soil and was not able to use landing pegs as LDM (Lawn Dart Method)
      • Center of gravity higher than expected (roughly centerline of spacecraft instead of low COG)
  • Objectives Missed
    • Parachute separation
      • Ultimate altitude not determined correctly prior to launch.
      • As a consequence, pyros did not fire and cut parachute cord.
      • Method of parachute detachment outlined in PDR and CDR was not able to be used due to weight concerns
  • Bonus Objectives Omitted
    • Due to weight issues, the vacuum motor, parachute release motor, stepper motor/drill, and temperature probe were omitted
    • Battery and component weights created issues that prevented attempting any bonus points
  • Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
    • Anticipated failure modes based on severity
    • Parachute deployment failure
      • Catastrophic failure (complete destruction of system, medium possibility)
    • Power system failure (battery disconnect/premature drain)
      • Mission failure (not catastrophic, but part of basic requirements, medium possibility)
    • Data downlink failure/transmission
      • Mission failure (not catastrophic, but part of basic requirements, medium possibility)
    • Parachute not detaching
      • Mission failure (not catastrophic, but part of basic requirements, high possibility)
    • Not landing upright
      • Mission failure (not catastrophic, but part of basic requirements, high possibility)
  • Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
    • Actual failure modes based on severity
    • Parachute deployment failure
      • Did not occur (successful)
    • Power system failure (battery disconnect/premature drain)
      • Did not occur (successful)
    • Data downlink failure/transmission
      • Did not occur (successful)
    • Parachute not detaching
      • Mission failure ( failure occurred)
    • Not landing upright
      • Mission failure ( failure occurred)
  • Failure analysis
    • Parachute detachment failure
      • Pyro switch did not activate due to failure to attain anticipated altitude (wind restrictions)
      • Pyro switch was calibrated on descent from apogee as well as time (not enough altitude or time)
      • Due to weight restrictions, the ultrasonic rangefinder was omitted and the process of parachute detachment was altered
  • Failure analysis
    • Cansat not landing upright
      • Weight restrictions prevented landing legs from being added
      • LDM (lawn Dart Method) was used, but the compacted soil prevented the pegs from penetrating the ground sufficiently (Cansat bounced rather than sticking)
      • Also, failure of parachute detachment mechanism caused the Cansat to be drug 1-2 feet AFTER landing
  • Lessons learned (generic)
    • Battery/Power source
      • Battery did not fail, however last minute changes increased the mass of the battery.
      • A larger current was needed to fire the pyro and maintain good downlink
      • Battery sizing needs to be more of a focus in the initial stages
      • Back up batteries on hand
  • Lessons learned (generic)
    • Structure
      • Structure was satisfactory, but needed minor modifications
      • Finite Element modeling of structure to properly reduce unnecessary mass
      • Consider alternative materials to reduce mass and increase durability
  • Lessons learned (generic)
    • Electronics
      • Simplify wiring to reduce mass and possibility of broken connections due to launch / MECO / Parachute deployment
      • Use of microprocessors to increase capability and reduce mass
      • Move from COTS to hand built parts to tailor functions to specific tasks/objectives
  • Lessons learned (specific)
    • Defining vertical landing. Some orientations were on the long axis instead of the circular diameter
    • Use of e-matches for pyros instead of high resistance / small diameter wire (used rocket igniters) as the wire was an abject failure.
    • Calibration of ARTS2 flight computer to provide more accurate data (i.e. redefine “up” and “down”
  • Lessons learned (specific)
    • Budget
      • Funding: secure sources and commitments and obtain funds EARLY
      • Find outside sources in the commercial community as well as academic
      • Use funding WISELY!
  • Lessons learned (specific)
    • Team organization
      • Find members from other fields (electrical, mechanical, etc) and recruit them. This year was aerospace engineering only.
      • Give members tasks based on their individual strengths and fields of study
      • Make team meeting regular and give specific outcomes for each meeting
  • Questions?